[lmm]

> which means that every partner could be held liable to an unlimited amount for anything any partner (or the partnership) did.

Technically I believe there's an exception for things that are very clearly the responsibility of a single partner (i.e. done without anyone else's knowledge or consent).

> It’s not obviously a bad thing

Disagree. We've seen a huge surge in accounting scandals since these accounting firms became limited-liability; the field has become dominated by these "too big to fail" companies who make massive profits while paying tiny penalties for their wrongdoing.

> Lloyd’s underwriters (used to?) have unlimited liability. I can’t think of other examples.

I believe there's a New York commercial law firm that's still structured as a traditional partnership.

> I feel like they don’t scale well to large organisations.

Maybe that's a feature rather than a bug.

[dan-robertson]

The firm you’re thinking of is Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, but I’d include them in the category of partnerships rather than other examples of unlimited liability.